You're correct, this is wide open to funny business, but the bigger evil was the Verisign-take-all W.L.S. (see my views at www.evil.biz).
My preference is for the 2003-4 system where all parties have a reasonable chance of getting domains with services like Pool and SnapNames (actually, I really liked it when I could get them all for $35 each!). There's a chance that the courts would demand that NSI delete and drop their names, but it's too late for any voluntary action here:) Isn't the real issue simply who gets the cash? Even with the old system, the cash for deleted Tucows domains went to Pool/Snapnames and participating Registrars. With Tucows doing this, the cash stays home. When users AGREE to have their supplier to step-in at expiration, there's nothing stopping this private agreement between two parties. This is simply a consignment of the domain or, in effect, giving the Registrar "right of first refusal" upon expiration. There's nothing illegal at all -- regardless of the ICANN agreement. Best, Loren ------ Original Message ------ Received: 11:54 PM PST, 03/08/2005 From: Robert L Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: discuss-list@opensrs.org Subject: Re: NSI-- What Arrogance! Loren Stocker wrote: >We're the good guys here.... Think of "Mom!" Ah, right. People on this list are thinking "oh, it's okay if Tucows is doing it". But you've already seen NSI's version. Do you want to see Register.com's version? How about NameJuice's (aka Domain Registry of America)? What are you going to say when some other registrars decide, for advertising purposes, to indefinitely keep *all* expiring domain names that generate any traffic -- and justify it by saying that they're paying the previous registrant a portion of the profit, just like Tucows, and that, just like Tucows, their end-user agreement allows them to do it, no matter what the RAA says? A precedent that gives registrars exclusive control over expiring domain names is dangerous. Do you trust other registrars to run these kinds of programs ethically? At least if an expiring domain name goes to PENDING DELETE at the registry, you know the registrar's database guy didn't just assign it to his brother. Anecdote: I was recently waiting for an expiring domain name to drop (at a different registrar). The WHOIS owner had been listed as "FRAUDULENT ORDER" with the registrar's e-mail address, phone number, nameservers, etc. for almost the whole year it had been registered; clearly someone originally tried to rip off the registrar. But then the domain name, instead of being deleted, was renewed, and the WHOIS updated to new ownership. Conversations with the new owner strongly suggest that he bought it directly from the registrar by just offering them money, with no auction or anything. (The new owner kindly offered to sell it to me for $20,000. No thanks.) You'll see a lot more of this kind of backroom dealing if registrars aren't forced to delete expiring domain names. I do trust Tucows, just like you do -- but I sure don't trust many of the other registrars who will say "we're just doing a version of what Tucows does". I'm surprised that Tucows doesn't see the danger of this precedent to their own business, too. Some other registrars have proven again and again that given an inch, they'll take a mile. Tucows is liable to gain an inch but lose a mile here. There's nothing stopping Tucows from setting up an auction site to sell domain names that Elliot's Mom (or anyone else) explicitly asks them to auction. There's also nothing stopping Tucows from entering the batch pool drop market themselves if they want to get into the "grabbing valuable domain names for $6 and reselling them" game. But what they're proposing is something else: auctioning domain names that the registrant has NOT knowingly asked to auction in a way that prevents anyone else in the domain name community from getting any chance at them. That's verging on monopolistic: it only makes sense for Tucows to do it because they have a large existing market share. It locks other players out of the process, placing all Tucows expiring domain names off limits to other companies. If a few more large registrars do the same thing, 99% of valuable domain names will, in effect, no longer expire and no longer be available through third-party companies like Pool. If you want one, you'll have to jump through whatever hoops the current registrar tells you to jump through. Hoping for things like a 35% auction fee when you deal with a particularly greedy registrar? This is a great way to get that. Do you really think removing aftermarket competition helps the free market for domain names? I think someone suggested that the auction process is akin to your house being auctioned if you abandon it and don't pay your property taxes. If that's so, what Tucows is proposing is the equivalent of the people in the county property records office getting to run the auctions themselves and personally pocket a percentage of the profit. In other words, there is a reason that auctions of public resources are usually run through a transparent, agreed process by a third party. We may not like much about the current aftermarket system, but at least we know that Pool.com (or whoever) played by the same rules available to the rest of us to get that domain name in the first place. > Elliot, there's no reason to not update the User Agreement right away to > allow for this. I can't tell if you're joking or not. Just in case you're not: Tucows's legally binding ICANN contract requires them to cancel all expired domain names at the registry if they don't hear from the rgeistrant. It's in pretty plain English that doesn't require a lawyer to parse; the letter and spirit of it are both clear. It would demonstrate a lack of understanding to suggest that Tucows update the end user agreement to "allow" them to do something their ICANN contract prohibits. -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies http://www.tigertech.net/
